To: 43north
I have always championed the theory that some people exist without what we would call an immortal soul. Whether they were born without it, knowingly sacrificed it for some temporary carnal satisfaction, or let it rot away from within one bit at a time, they don't have one. The how and why perhaps shall always be a matter of debate; the empirical fact of the matter is not.
"But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: for men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away, for his name is Obama."
To: Viking2002
If anything obstructs a liberal, he rids himself of it’s burden. Why would a soul be any different? Having a soul implies having a conscience. And having a conscience implies something greater than one’s self/Id/Ego to be accountable to.
This simply will not do...
To: Viking2002
Agreed. What else would explain liberalism?
37 posted on
01/21/2013 6:11:42 PM PST by
43north
(BHO: 50% black, 50% white, 100% RED)
To: Viking2002
Agreed. What else would explain liberalism?
41 posted on
01/21/2013 6:16:38 PM PST by
43north
(BHO: 50% black, 50% white, 100% RED)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson